Summary
We all know that politics is failing us right now, and the explanation for that is easy to find. When most of the political arena is filled by people who hate public services and want to undermine them, then it's hardly surprising that we aren't getting the services we need and want and which people would be willing to pay for if only they were delivered.
I have been thinking quite a lot about business of late, and what makes it work. Based on m my experience, a lot of people - including those running many businesses - don't seem too understand what they are selling, for example.
Let me use an example. When I was running an accountancy practice, I realised that we sold peace of mind to our clients. We didn't sell accounts, or tax return completion, or anything else of that sort to most of our clients. We sold them the knowledge that they could send all tax-related matters our way, safe in the knowledge that we would deal with everything on a timely basis and well within the law so that they would not be put at risk. That was what they wanted, and by selling people just that, we could charge more than average for the service that we supplied because we understood exactly what that core service was. You could sleep at night with us on your side: that was the message.
Of course, we required technical expertise.
Of course, we had to be good at what we did.
And, of course, we had to explain what we were doing - although we appreciated that most people would never read the small print, and so we put it all in appendices to letters (those were the days) in which the main body of the text only told the client what they really needed to know, such as when their next bill was due, and what it was, and how to pay it.
It was a winning formula.
How could you replicate that for government? Plenty of people reading this blog are interested in the details of what it does. We are willing to trawl over monetary and fiscal policy, the ins and outs of budgets, and much more.
But what do people really want from government? Most people just want peace of mind - the idea that government is there to look after the things that go wrong and to do a bit more besides.
To put it another way, they want to know that:
- They will be cared for if they are sick
- The same will be true for their families
- Their children will be educated
- If everything goes wrong, the state will provide them with a safety net
- They will be safe and secure in their homes and in their country, but that means existential as well as physical risks, so climate change is in there
- They will have a home
- They'd like employment if they're able to work
- They'd like protection or a pension if they can't
There may be a few other things, but that's most of it. In other words, people are willing to pay to pass the buck to government in exchange for security, and that's the deal into which they think they have entered.
If the government doesn't deliver peace of mind they'll get angry with it.
If it makes too much of a fuss whilst doing so, they might also get annoyed.
But if the government delivers those basic things they will more than willingly pay a premium price - but only if it does.
Of course, that does require that people have some comprehension of the alternative price that they might have to pay if the government option is not on the table, but since almost everyone knows that private medicine costs a lot more than the NHS, and private rented accommodation is dearer and worse than state-sector accommodation, understanding on these issues is not hard to establish. All parents of toddlers paying nursery fees really know just what comparative costs are.
So, we have, in that case, a simple list of things to do and an awareness that, deep down, people have a sense that the state is able to deliver value for money.
What, then, do you need to create to deliver this utopia? That's also not hard to work out.
You need managers who have to understand these two things.
And you need staff who they treat with respect and who are persuaded as a result to deliver these things - and most staff will do what most managers want if you treat them with respect.
Then, those staff members need the tools for the job, from decent workplaces to the right kit.
That's it, in essence. That is what the job of good government is when it comes down to it.
So why aren't we getting what we need? Again that is easy to explain.
First, we have managers (known as politicians) who hate the organisation they work for, and want to constrain its size whenever they are given the chance to do so, usually by undermining its services, staff or the provision of kit to make service delivery possible.
Second, we have demotivated staff who have been treated like fools (which they aren't) and who have been taken for granted (a cardinal sin) for decades, and who cannot, therefore, deliver what is required because they lack the direction and desire to do so because their managers (the politicians) never miss the chance to tell them they're rubbish.
And third, the required kit is not available.
So, we end up with poor public services and resentment at the levels of tax charged because the public is not getting what they deserve because, really rather bizarrely, our politicians seem to think that their main task is to deny the public what they need, and want, which they are willing to pay a premium price for if only they got it.
Sorting out politics is, in that case, really not very hard. We just need to get some people in charge who really believe in the delivery of public services and most of the rest will follow.
The problem is that right now politics is dominated by people who seem to hate public services. We just need to be rid of them.
It's really not that difficult to work out what is needed. Now, we just need people to do it.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
I would like some very basic competence – here is yet another example of the extraordinary incompetence of HMRC
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/sep/30/hmrc-accused-firms-seeking-rebates-on-behalf-of-unwitting-taxpayers
Everyone knew this was going on
Well, my workplace’s intranet has gone down so I might as well say something.
The purpose of the Tories is pure opportunism. The 2010 election was purely that, with angry unthinking voters forgetting about why they kicked the Tories out in 1997. The voter did not listen to Kundera’s observation ”The struggle of man against power is the struggle of memory against forgetting.’
But the Tories may well be the prop for Blue Labour if we accept that BL is just a manifestation of the STP? And if the STP does exists, what was the question (Single Transferable Party)?
One thing is for sure, is that too many politicians are simply useful idiots out for hire.
Of course, these people aren’t idiots on their own self seeking behalf. No, on their own behalf they know exactly what they are doing, looking after No.1
It’s just us poor saps who happen to rely on them for small things like fairness, social justice, equality etc., to whom they look like idiots.
I like your story about selling peace of mind. When I used to train people on entrepreneurship, I used the story of a British slide-rule manufacturer that made the fundamental business error of thinking they manufactured slide-rules. They didn’t. They made pocket calculators, and when the electronic calculator came along, they were wiped out. (It was more detailed than this, and fun – started with a picture of a slide-rule that nobody under a certain age recognised, which became part of the story…). In business terms it’s about having a profound understanding of your offer – from the customer’s (maybe unconscious) point of view, technologically, etc, instead of missing the wood for the trees. Trouble is, I suspect for Starmer et al, there are only trees…
Much to agree with
Might some see politics as a a metaphorical vehicle for power, control over other people and self advancement?
Might the consistently high quality of your blog be considerably connected with your commitment to, and experience of, a grounded, practical job which presented prompt, significant consequences according to the qualities, or lack thereof, of what you did?
There was a TV show I used to watch, set in an American hospital, where the main characters driving principle was simple put = “How can I help?”
I would suggest that#s the guiding light that’s missing from our politics, Sadly our politicians seem to be more interested in “How can I help ,yself?”
“We just need to get some people in charge who really believe in the delivery of public services”.
Yes, a no brainer. But remember what happened when a Labour leader not long ago actually stood for these ideals, and increased the party membership to half a million. It didn’t take long for him to be thoroughly trashed by media, and those within his own party who now rule the roost.
If only it were so simple! Oh wait! It is! Thank you Richard for this wonderful essay. I subscribe – after 70 years – to the view that we elect the wrong politicians, who, instead of thinking along the lines you give (the true meaning of “service”) are concerned with getting elected to pursue their own selfish agenda. So politics becomes corrupted. Both of our two principle parliamentary parties are, in my view, deeply corrupt.
Much to agree with
And thanks for joining the conversation here
Once again it’s the voters’ fault. I’d like to know which prospective/incumbent candidates are the right ones? And how you can tell, given that every candidate/MP will tell you it’s them. And how, precisely, can an electoral system that demands that candidates be involved in electioneering, and then spend their remaining time concerned about re-election, possibly incentivise a focus on delivering for everyone, when it will only ever be a faction who will vote for any particular candidate, and the candidate is primarily a representative of a party, and in a party system that rewards and punishes said members. These are systemic problems and can only be the fault of voters’ choices to the extent that voters can directly change the system. And we can’t. If politicians are duplicitous, that’s on them. If they focus solely on keeping in power, that’s a systemic problem. If they heel to a party line, that’s a problem with parties, them and the system. Voters have so little influence.
OK, what’s the solution?
David Willets You say “Once again it’s the voters’ fault. I’d like to know which prospective/incumbent candidates are the right ones? And how you can tell, given that every candidate/MP will tell you it’s them.” Well, how about observing their actions? A “good” politician will do good things and a bad politician bad things. Very simple. If they serve the public good they are good; if not, or serve themselves, then surely they are bad. In other words, hold them to account. From a voter’s perspective don’t vote for them “because they are the right tribe”! Also write to them, engage with them – and if they don’t deliver what you want then don’t vote for them. You, as a voter, can value integrity and honesty. Not all politicians are duplicitous, it’s up to voters – that’s us – to sort them out. I don’t believe voters have little power, but they really do need to wake up and pay attention to what their MP is up to. I don’t know much about politicians but I do know that my own North West constituency of Morecambe was served by someone (Tory) who was pretty absent but did answer letters (sometimes) and is now served by someone (Labour) who has received funding from Israeli sources and so far ignored two letters from me. I also know that the neighbouring constituency of Lancaster is well served by an MP with a good reputation – as is my other neighbouring constituency which again, has a good Liberal Democrat MP. We are a democracy, albeit flawed, and while we vote unthinkingly, tribally, then those flaws can only increase.
Another exceptionally good post – thank you – and it includes ‘so climate change is in there’.
Few politicians either have a science background (I do) or have much aptitude for using scientific or any other kind of research. Worse, political appointees who control much of the BBC’s output, are ignorant and blind.
Erudite and energetic campaigner, Jonathan N Fuller, wrote to the BBC this week (copied on Facebook) ‘If BBC Sunday Morning Live had an interest in telling audiences the truth you would ask: How do the young feel about having to pay the climate debt? If you wanted to Tell The Truth, you would tell audiences that the UK has 0.85% of global population but is responsible for 4.45% of global historical emissions. We used up our fair share of the carbon budget decades ago. So the UK pretends it has a carbon budget for 1.5C, overdraws that pretend budget, then leaves the young to pay it back after the year 2050.
What the BBC has always refused to tell the young is that they have to pay to remove all the carbon from the atmosphere we dump there today. And the young have to pay £trillions between 2050 and 2100 to do that.’
For an effective democracy, people need to know the truth. Lord Reith decreed that the BBC should ‘entertain’ and it certainly does that. He also required it to ‘educate’ and ‘inform’. Among other matters, it is failing to inform, convince, educate and sound the alarm about the unfolding climate disaster and other environmental issues. And it is failing very badly.
Most of the print and electronic media fail us, and especially the young, by sins of omission as well as falsehoods.
I have posted before that in my own constituency (Lichfield) Labour and Lib Dem polled enough to take the District Council off the Conservatives (who’d squandered 15 millions on one project alone). It required a little cooperation, nothing more. For me, a lefty, it was a no-brainer, carpe diem!
They declined to do so. Why? In my view to avoid taking full responsibility, comfortable in the ‘same-old’. I did have dialogue with one of the architects of this, and their excuse was they could ‘ hold them to account’. What a failure of nerve!
Good morning Richard. Your comment:- “Based on my experience, a lot of people – including those running many businesses – don’t seem too understand what they are selling.”
Long, long ago, I adopted a Marks & Spencers maxim “People only ever buy two things… good feelings and solutions to problems”.
Also, a book by Robert Townsend called ‘Up the Organisation – How to Stop the Corporation from Stifling People & Strangling Profits’ encouraged me to create ‘An Employee-Share-Owning Partnership’ (AESOP) when starting my own business 45 years ago.
Whilst my little local company never achieved the scale needed to be remunerative for long-serving staff, the concept of Employee Share Ownership has necessitated consultation with them on all aspects of business. Decades later, many are still with me… but describe themselves as ‘long-suffering!’
I like that
And that M&S quote is pretty much right
So fundamentally correct and simple!
Slightly off topic but transferable ideas to the political realm.
Will Hutton’s book, This Time No Mistakes, mentions Purposeful Capitalism and it’s application by Julian Richer (Richer Sounds) which provides some guidelines to providing good jobs by focussing on the customer. I see Julian Richer has written his experiences and insights in The Richer Way.
Further aside, out Independent TD in Ireland (Michael Collins) runs a scheme with a private hospital in Northern Ireland to allow patients on excessively long waiting lists to obtain timely Cataract, Hip and Knee operations. Paid up front in Sterling by the patient then mostly reimbursed in Euros by the HSE (Irish NHS). He listened to the need and made it happen.
I have question marks over all that.
We are where we are. After having my knee done using that system, I have spoken to many people concerning poor healthcare in rural Cork and the need to improve access and availability. Poor housing (causing resentment towards immigrants) and infrastructure. The Independent TD mentioned and his Independent/Social Democrat colleagues have been fighting for these causes but the ruling Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil coalition needs to be unseated before anything will happen. (election soon). Here, the farmers lobby is very strong, influential and highly conservative.
It’s going to be interesting to see where they spend the €13Bn plus other surplus. Don’t hold your breath.
Remember a surplus does not mean the government has money
It means the private sector has not.
I was having an interesting conversation a few weeks ago about the economics of operating paddle steamers.
The person who I was discussing it with, and its gone into in some detail in Mike Tedstones book on P&A Campbell pointed out that they basically ran because somebody decided to run them – something I suspect that is common with a lot of business’s (Road Haulage anyone!)
In the same way where are the Politicians who want to make things happen? As has been pointed out look at what happened to Corbyn.
I cant imagine a minister doing what MacMillan did – and fair play to him for it, going round the country trying to source the bricks needed to build 300000 houses a year
I think people also want fairness. Marx was succinct when he said “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs”.
Michael Hudson writes: “The purpose of a public utility is to minimize the cost of basic needs.”
https://michael-hudson.com/2024/07/gold-as-the-peace-currency/
On top of that, workers need to earn sufficient to be able to have a decent standard of living, and we need to provide welfare to the least well off.
Private enterprise gives people an opportunity to earn some more money.
Unfortunately, there are others who see public service as something which undermines their ability to make a profit.
These views should be able to coincide with each other. I have no problem with private enterprise.
One of the most painful things I have realised over the last 10-14 years, is that I can no longer rely on the idea that “government” (and most large businesses who have been contracted to take over the role of government, locally and nationally) have my well being and security as a priority. My default assumptions/expectations are distrust, dishonesty, disinformation, dissimulation, exemplified by the behaviour of politicians during the whole Brexit saga (2010 through to the present) and despairingly personified by Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson, and Liz Truss but by no means confined to them or to their party. Do our politicians realise the growing contempt that we have for them?
I have been involved with friendships/partnerships with people in much less materially wealthy countries overseas, that have lived for most or all of their lives, with corrupt incompetent self-serving governments, and admired the resilience of those individuals, and their ability to hold on to hope, while having absolutely no illusions about the shortcomings of those who ruled over them, and exploited them, whether that corruption and incompetence existed within the organs of the state or local mafia-style organisations that had control of corporate activity (eg: car insurance, banking).
Because of them, despite experiencing growing anger, resentment and disgust at those with wealth and power, I am not giving up (mainly because I think they would be delighted if we all DID give up). Despite constantly dealing with broken systems, as I use public services (such as the NHS, exponentially more important to my household as my wife and I get older), we regularly come across amazing people, whose commitment and passion often reduce us to tears. They are appallingly ill served by their masters.
I am now grateful that their experience and example (and continued friendship) helps me not to give up in despair, now that my own country (the UK) has gone down the same road, which you describe so well above.
I was a Sales Director for 10 years and it is such a relief to read that you understand the importance of knowing what people are really buying when they buy,
I was, for many years, a reference librarian in a university library. When helping students to locate references to articles, books etc I would send them off into the stacks to find the books, journals with the caveat – if you don’t find what you are looking for, come back and I’ll help you again. They almost always came back – to say thank you, I found what I wanted.
I used to say to some of our beginning librarians, it was a very good way of getting feedback, and reinforcing the fact that we did have a valuable function, as well as providing a decent service.
Hmmm….selling peace of mind. Yes.
Puts me in mind of the old sales cliche. We don’t sell drills…..we sell holes. Holes are what the customer wants. 🙂
I like the whole viewpoint of wanting governments and managers that actually believe in the public services they are expected to deliver. And I gloomily marvel at how professional politicians in the West have been able to sell themselves for decades as the protectors of our public services while blatantly underfunding them.
Neo-liberalism is all about sidelining democratic choices so that businesses get to make the big decisions.
But there is a danger in wanting better managers compared to the corrupt managers we currently endure. I am reminded of how the EU would insist on technocrats like Mario Draghi becoming Prime Minister of Italy as he was seen as a better manager. So he would seem to pop up as a leader whenever required even as his personal popularity was minimal. Macron in France is similar. Tusk in Poland,maybe. The bankers choice. Making the Right wing populists seem positively sympatico.
There has to be a democratic link between voters and managers. We need changes to democratic processes beyond just a move to PR ,vital though that is. We shouldn’t forget that Orban in Hungary, and Meloni in Italy emerged in countries with PR systems delivering uninspiring ,corrupt managers at parliamentary level.
We need to discuss how to increase popular involvent in running public services at local and national level. Beyond token Union reps attending meetings with managers.
We even need to re establish the idea that the population have a need and a Right to have a say in governance,beyond voting every few years.
On a related topic, I have long had a dream that a decent government would introduce tax reductions/incentives to small enterprises that adopt a strictly egalitarian/co operative admin model. It seems to me that a lot of small businesses get set up with one person as owner, drawing in friends and acqaintances from within the same trade as employees, because that is the only model that seems to exist. Leaving one person in charge with all the benefits and agonising responsibillity, while others , friends on good terms initially ,find themselves becoming thwarted and resentful employees. Might it become more effective to run as a co op instead? Useful experience to inform the quality of voting decisions for national government.
The trouble with co-ops is they assume continuing membership but quite reasonably people come and go in business. There are also problems with accessing capital in co-ops. I like them. But they are only suitable in some cases.
New Flame.
“ We need to discuss how to increase popular involvement in running public services at local and national level.”
There seems to be a flicker of hope, even in Hungary – from the Byline Times – https://bylinetimes.com/2024/09/30/hungary-viktor-orban-populism/
What has happened in recent years is that politicians have become detached from their parties.
They have been captured by corporate interests who see the state as a pool of resources to be looted.
It is blatant with the NHS as the biggest budget lined up to be looted by data companies, American managed care organisations , the pharmaceutical and private healthcare and social care providers and the hangers on who ease the path.
Parties do not reflect members , they have become supporters clubs for self perpetuating elites running their own show , only constrained by a media owned and manipulated by the same corporate interests.